|
Hbomberguy posted:Star wars has always been b movies. B movies are an aesthetic, not a measure of budget or creator maturity. B movie aesthetics are rooted in the sincerity of the actors and/or directors involved. They're making an entertaining movie because they just power through any short comings. That enthusiasm helps you to ride along through the whole badly made affair. You can potentially replicate this energy on purpose but most of the time it fails. Hence why the self-aware sci-fi original movies now tend to be worse than the older ones where they were genuinely trying. The prequels lack all of this because of how boring they are. None of the actors bare, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee, seemed to actually care about anything happening in the movies themselves. Now if the prequels had been nothing but McDiarmid being super evil Palpatine shooting lightning at everyone, they would have been fantastic movies.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I just think it's telling that in asking a basic question about what was wrong with the directing, the immediate response is, 'like Plinkett says, it's-' Hbomberguy posted:When you use the plinkett videos as an authority, you are making an argument from authority. You have to justify why something is objectively bad. Either you don't actually know what argument from authority is, or you're being intellectually dishonest in order to dismiss an argument you don't like. By the definition you seem to be working under, if you use the same argument as someone else, you'd better not cite where you got that argument or else you're committing a fallacy. You'd better just plagiarize it and pretend you came up with it instead. Argument from authority is saying "these are bad because the Plinkett videos said they're bad" with no elaboration whatsoever; simply asserting the truth of a statement based on the fact that someone else said it. Saying "these are bad, and let me use this argument as made by the Plinkett videos to illustrate why" is completely rhetorically valid, because you are still presenting an argument rather than making an assertion. It's just an argument that was first given by another party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
This guy lives to be contrarian He argued for like 5 pages that a show with anal fisting wasn't horrible despite literally never watching it
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I just think it's telling that in asking a basic question about what was wrong with the directing, the immediate response is, 'like Plinkett says, it's-' Whoa, thanks for defining appeals to authority for me. I'm writing my thesis, and this whole time I've been citing scholarship and quoted academics. But all this time, I've been making appeals to authority. I'm going to excise every citation now. Thanks a lot!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
I hated the prequels because I didn’t identify with any of the characters. In the original trilogy, both Luke and Han provided examples of fairly ordinary guys who were swept into something they didn’t really understand. The prequels gave us nothing but special snowflakes who didn’t much resemble me or anyone else I knew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
One of the only issues I have with the criticism of the prequels was seeing a lot of nerds mock an exasperated response from a guy who not only heard that the only person he ever had a romantic attraction with died horribly, and likely from his actions, and nearly died from being dumped in lava by the hand of his best friend for a good part of his life. And given that RLM also did this after pissing about the relationship realism and how humans act on scifi for most of the reviewed media, it just comes across as a bit hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Tae posted:This guy lives to be contrarian Yeah. It's a "type." I say we just count our blessings that he's an (intentionally and unintentionally) funny contrarian instead of just a dull, annoying one. But that's his modus operandi, and it'll help if you just go into arguments with him assuming that. Might as well be named Devil S. Advokitt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:So let me get this straight: Every single point I mentioned in that post is invalid because I mentioned Plinkett. Even though every single point is valid. That's loving insane and makes me think you can't actually argue any of those points and instead you're just sidestepping by going "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh figure out different arguments! Those arguments are now invalid!" Not at all. You're entirely welcome to use someone else's arguments - but when you do this, you have to defend them properly. The reason arguing from an authority is fallacious is because there's the assumption that it is correct based on the authority being right. Taking just for example the use of shot-reverse shot, I find that this complements the themes of the film. RLM's claim of 'this is a boring thing you cannot do it in a movie' doesn't work on me. I find it more interesting to read what is in the film on its own merits than to measure it based on rules of how things 'should' be filmed. At this impasse in a discussion, you might want to explain what makes the reviews accurate about shot-reverse-shot being objectively a bad and boring thing to do with no meaning whatsoever. I don't think I am being dishonest about this. If folks really don't want to have this conversation we can totally move on. The film has amazing scenes like when crazy action-hero lightsaberman is suddenly caught in the confines of a still shot, and is incapable of talking to his wife because he is a broken person. I happen to be able to appreciate this. In addition, shot-reverse-shot in an unfamiliar location conveys the very specific idea that something is going unseen. Like in a gunfight when you cut between two abstract shots of the gunmen shooting at each other offscreen, a mystery is generated - are these people in two different locations, are they shooting at each other or someone else, how close are they to one another? This is often used for punchlines in comedies or to create tension and confusion by removing information from the scene. This is a series where if a planet isn't in the jedi's space-records, they refuse to believe it exists at all. In a film about a bad guy secretly taking over in the background, this withholding of visual information is fitting. If you just don't find the characters relateable, fair enough. I don't need them to be. If the film's cinematography is objectively bad for you, then fine. For me though, it's not. e: While there's probably a joke in denying that I'm a contrarian, I just try to appreciate everything for what it is in order to get something out of it. That's just how I view things. e2: Ah gently caress it I'm just annoying people now. I was tired last night and pushed it a bit too much. Sorry. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I just think it's telling that in asking a basic question about what was wrong with the directing, the immediate response is, 'like Plinkett says, it's-' This is lazy trolling. Citing the source of an argument is not "appeal from authority". Idran and Jsor put this very well /\ /\
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Kunster posted:One of the only issues I have with the criticism of the prequels was seeing a lot of nerds mock an exasperated response from a guy who not only heard that the only person he ever had a romantic attraction with died horribly, and likely from his actions, and nearly died from being dumped in lava by the hand of his best friend for a good part of his life. And given that RLM also did this after pissing about the relationship realism and how humans act on scifi for most of the reviewed media, it just comes across as a bit hosed up. I get what you're saying, but that bit of the movie is staged so poorly it completely undercuts all the stuff you're talking about. Seriously, that sequence plays like slapstick comedy; a static medium shot as Vader awkwardly stumbles around before arching his back, raising his fists and bellowing out the goofiest most melodramatic "Noooo!". For the character and audience it's supposed to be a moment of abject horror as Vader realizes the consequence of his actions, but I've never met someone who didn't chuckle at it while watching -- intentionally or not. What's even worse is that prior to that ending the entire sequence of Vader being built IS really well done. Then suddenly Vader is stomping his feet like he's in Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein and all that drama is gone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Hbomber has some good points. I don't agree with him entirely but he's not wrong. As much as I enjoy seeing Star Wars nerds getting riled up, this derail is getting too far.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
It's an interesting way of looking at it, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. While I don't really know anything about making films, I feel as though you might be overestimating George Lucas's intentions a little. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Taking just for example the use of shot-reverse shot, I find that this complements the themes of the film. RLM's claim of 'this is a boring thing you cannot do it in a movie' doesn't work on me. I find it more interesting to read what is in the film on its own merits than to measure it based on rules of how things 'should' be filmed. At this impasse in a discussion, you might want to explain what makes the reviews accurate about shot-reverse-shot being objectively a bad and boring thing to do with no meaning whatsoever. To answer your totally not loaded question at all, you're again being willfully obtuse as to RLM's (and other people's) points about shot-reverse shot. The point is that shot-reverse shot is boring and lazy when it is just two people sitting and giving exposition. Or two people slowly walking down a CGI hallway. Or two people standing against a CGI balcony. It's boring. Your example about a gunfight though is that even from the prequels? Because yeah, that's a great example of how you could effectively use shot-reverse shot but I don't think that ever happened in the movies you're trying to defend. I'd stick to dubbing forced laughter over creepy white supremacist videos, really seems like you have a good thing going there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
OctoberCountry posted:I get what you're saying, but that bit of the movie is staged so poorly it completely undercuts all the stuff you're talking about. Seriously, that sequence plays like slapstick comedy; a static medium shot as Vader awkwardly stumbles around before arching his back, raising his fists and bellowing out the goofiest most melodramatic "Noooo!". It's badly executed and I did laugh at it, but I didn't go "OMG how dare they kill Vader's badassitude, if I was there I'd be more manly about my abject horror to the whole situation" as part of my criticism as some folk did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Man, now I feel bad for kind of starting this argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
BobbyK posted:To answer your totally not loaded question at all, you're again being willfully obtuse as to RLM's (and other people's) points about shot-reverse shot. The point is that shot-reverse shot is boring and lazy when it is just two people sitting and giving exposition. Or two people slowly walking down a CGI hallway. Or two people standing against a CGI balcony. It's boring. Your example about a gunfight though is that even from the prequels? Because yeah, that's a great example of how you could effectively use shot-reverse shot but I don't think that ever happened in the movies you're trying to defend. Yeah, the problem with those scenes is that there's really nothing to intensify or to draw attention from (the scenes are domestic, with no other objects of interest). RLM showed that they operated on a formula, and could be set anywhere, and held no real regard or attention to their space or surroundings. Thanks for boiling that to "RLM said that this is bad", hbomberguy. Of course, the scenes being static and unreal just means that it's about how static and unreal they are, in which case the movie succesfully persuades people to not be interested in what's happening. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Kunster posted:It's badly executed and I did laugh at it, but I didn't go "OMG how dare they kill Vader's badassitude, if I was there I'd be more manly about my abject horror to the whole situation" as part of my criticism as some folk did. How Anakin acted throughout the rest of the movies did a lot more to kill any badassery of Darth Vader than the infamous NOOOOOOOOO did. People just point at it because it's so visible and easy to mock. By the time that happened, Anakin had far since lost any credibility and the writing for his character still makes no sense to me at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
The thing I will give the Prequels is that Ewan McGregor was a perfect cast for Obi-Wan. It's just a shame they didn't do anything with the character. What a waste.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Kunster posted:It's badly executed and I did laugh at it, but I didn't go "OMG how dare they kill Vader's badassitude, if I was there I'd be more manly about my abject horror to the whole situation" as part of my criticism as some folk did. I think I was a bit prejudiced going into that scene because I'd read the novelisation first, and in that scene it's more of a robotic primal scream than "NOOOOOOOOO!" which I thought seemed more emotionally impactful (also, I was about 13 at the time). Of course, that being said, obviously it's difficult to imagine how it would have translated to the screen, and it may well have been worse if they'd gone with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:e: While there's probably a joke in denying that I'm a contrarian, I just try to appreciate everything for what it is in order to get something out of it. That's just how I view things. Tae posted:He argued for like 5 pages that a show with anal fisting wasn't horrible despite literally never watching it  Bro, just embrace it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Jay O speaks reason. Also to get back on topic, I just started watching Foldable Human with his Cremaster Cycle videos. Good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:I think I was a bit prejudiced going into that scene because I'd read the novelisation first, and in that scene it's more of a robotic primal scream than "NOOOOOOOOO!" which I thought seemed more emotionally impactful (also, I was about 13 at the time). Of course, that being said, obviously it's difficult to imagine how it would have translated to the screen, and it may well have been worse if they'd gone with that. You'd have to change some things visually, that would have been better changed anyway, but a primal scream probably would have been better. Of course a primal scream through voice modulation may indeed have made it hard to differentiate between something like the Dean Scream and a Keen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I am left wondering if part of the problem with the scene is due to the voice modulation (and the swelling music) removing some of the potential subtlety in the delivery. There's also something to be said for the fact that it's too quick of a transformation. You go from seeing Anakin's wrecked up face (which always looked off to me to begin with...maybe it was the eyes?) as he's locked into the suit and then it goes straight into a full, deep James Earl Jones scream. It doesn't convey enough of the horror of a man being robbed of his remaining humanity, as he hears his voice warped into something else. Either more of a build-up, with better delivery, or the use of an intermediate voice (for lack of a better term, not going "Full Vader") might've helped. John Murdoch fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Tae is mistaken. I watched the first episode, and overall agreed that the show wasn't actually worth watching or good, just that it actively functioned as a deconstruction of its own ideological fantasy. Here's a secret: Once I studied porn reviews. Like sat down, read a bunch, and took notes. My findings indicate that, beside some technical terms or an actor's appearance, negative reviews often correlate with 'fakeness'. Folks don't like being reminded that what they're watching 'isn't real.' Seeing the walls of the set, the fear that someone might be faking their reactions or the abstractness of the setting - the consistent desire is to witness Something Real, or at the least something that erases any inadvertent reminders that it definitely isn't - that this is porn actors making gently caress for your money and pleasure. Folks don't want to know that. Seeing the wood screws in the fake dungeon wall reminds people they're watching something faked for their amusement, that the fantasy isn't real. The whole thing is ruined by the reminder that you are watching porn. With this in mind: Many reactions on various forums correlate with this theme uncannily. Cross Ange is Bad Porn. It leaves a bad taste even in the mouths of people who defended loving Valvrave. It holds a mirror up, reminds you of what you are watching - what you have chosen to watch, with your time on planet earth. This fascinates me in ways I clearly have trouble communicating in forum text. I must admit though: I have a problem. We all have our vices. Mine is, I find the star wars prequels entertaining and good and waste everyone's time arguing about their gus van sant level intricacies. The first step is admitting you have a problem. I'm sorry. I'm checking myself into Movie Rehab. By which I mean: I'm gonna go watch Troll 2 and enjoy myself and shut the hell up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
It might also have been interesting to have the suit not quite be the exact Darth Vader suit from the originals, an earlier less-refined model they had to put together quickly for Anakin; but if we're going to play the Make the Prequels Better game we're going to be here all day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
DStecks posted:It might also have been interesting to have the suit not quite be the exact Darth Vader suit from the originals, an earlier less-refined model they had to put together quickly for Anakin; but if we're going to play the Make the Prequels Better game we're going to be here all day. I was going to edit in exactly this. A lot of the tension and weight of the scene is shattered when he comes out of the process a perfectly clean and pressed Darth Vader (and the more I think about it, the bright lights making the burned skin make-up look fake). It feels emblematic of a common criticism of the writing and design of the prequels, that their goal isn't to tell their own story, but rather to directly set things up for the OT. It's as if Palpatine literally had the Darth Vader costume hanging in a closet and was just waiting for the plot to catch up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Has there been any "Internet Critic" videos pointing out that House of Cards (the new one at least) isn't that good of a show? I found it to be willfully shallow and simplistic; yet at the same time insufferably self-congratulatory. The main character is a total Mary Sue yet people are unable to see it because they've been convinced Kevin Spacey is some sort of folk hero like Bill Murray or Jeff Goldblum; and his Underwood character is just an extension of his existing public persona. I'm just surprised how little negative criticism the show gets; I'd like to see someone way smarter than me do a fair take-down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I don't think many internet critics review modern TV
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I don't think many internet critics review modern TV Unless it's a cartoon or Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Cubey posted:How Anakin acted throughout the rest of the movies did a lot more to kill any badassery of Darth Vader than the infamous NOOOOOOOOO did. People just point at it because it's so visible and easy to mock. By the time that happened, Anakin had far since lost any credibility and the writing for his character still makes no sense to me at all. If anything, the "NOOO" is a microcosm of the film's failures: trying so hard to tell a story with gravitas and sincere emotion, and winding up something totally goofy. John Murdoch posted:I am left wondering if part of the problem with the scene is due to the voice modulation (and the swelling music) removing some of the potential subtlety in the delivery. And I agree that a primal scream would have been better. Hbomberguy posted:My findings indicate that, beside some technical terms or an actor's appearance, negative reviews often correlate with 'fakeness'. Folks don't like being reminded that what they're watching 'isn't real.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Has there been any "Internet Critic" videos pointing out that House of Cards (the new one at least) isn't that good of a show? I found it to be willfully shallow and simplistic; yet at the same time insufferably self-congratulatory. The main character is a total Mary Sue yet people are unable to see it because they've been convinced Kevin Spacey is some sort of folk hero like Bill Murray or Jeff Goldblum; and his Underwood character is just an extension of his existing public persona. HoC is silly but fun, much more about crazy twists and plot turns than about characters or meaning. It's the 90's paperback potboiler of TV series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I don't think many internet critics review modern TV Which is kind of a shame since there are some genuinely fun or interesting shows (Gotham, Sleepy Hollow, Flash, Hannibal...) that could be reviewed. Still, they take dedication and time to sit down and watch and analyze and TV seasons are a monster to handle. I would however, still like to discover how CW's, Beauty and the Beast kept winning People's Choice Award for Best Drama when I was pretty sure no one was watching it. (I answered my own question didn't I  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Has anyone done an angry review or negative review video of breaking bad? I can already imagine they're a skyler hater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Has anyone done an angry review or negative review video of breaking bad? I can already imagine they're a skyler hater. The problem is that there's a lot of intense vitriol around Skyler. As a matter of comparison I was just watching SFdebris talk about TNG a bit and while he pokes fun at how useless Troi is it's never malicious. For some reason Sky on Breaking Bad makes people angrier than goons get at the existence of MLP. I can see someone talking about her and using the word oval office or bitch no less than 50 times. So while it's probably already out there it's not something I exactly want to see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:HoC is silly but fun, much more about crazy twists and plot turns than about characters or meaning. It's the 90's paperback potboiler of TV series. I haven't seen too much of Scandal, but I wouldn't be surprised if Scandal's better at being a fun, shallow show vaguely about politics. I guess I can try to make my own "video essay" about House of Cards as well as other movies and shows, but I really am not interested in becoming another Internet Critic wannabe. (Not anymore at least; I'll admit I thought about it in the past.) I know from college that process of writing and editing videos is just loving hard and exhausting; and I certainly don't have a nice radio voice. Also, I'm not as familiar with the "prestige drama" canon to draw comparisons with better shows. And while I don't believe in impartiality with internet critic opinions, I'm not a big fan of Kevin Spacey to do anything remotely "fair". And I can easily imagine myself going on too many self-righteous "social justice" tangents. Hbomberguy posted:Has anyone done an angry review or negative review video of breaking bad? I can already imagine they're a skyler hater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
They haven't done HoC as far as I know, but Shark Jumping does vids on new TV: https://www.youtube.com/user/sharkjumpingshow/videos
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
DStecks posted:HoC is silly but fun, much more about crazy twists and plot turns than about characters or meaning. It's the 90's paperback potboiler of TV series. The series actually originated as a trilogy of paperbacks in the 1990s; they were written by Margaret Thatcher's former chief of staff around the time she went. I've tried the Kevin Spacey series myself. I think it's a well-made series but I think I'm too attached to the BBC version with Ian Richardson to give it a fair shake. Compendium posted:I would however, still like to discover how CW's, Beauty and the Beast kept winning People's Choice Award for Best Drama when I was pretty sure no one was watching it. (I answered my own question didn't I I think Lupa made a video about that back when she reviewed the NBC (?) series starring Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman (apparently, George R. R. Martin was an executive producer on that).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Compendium posted:I would however, still like to discover how CW's, Beauty and the Beast kept winning People's Choice Award for Best Drama when I was pretty sure no one was watching it. (I answered my own question didn't I Isn't that the one where the Beast is a Teen Beat cover model with a small scar on his cheek?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Yea it feels like a cheesy paperback because it was a cheesy paperback at first. I don't think anyone really looks at it as high political drama but more we want to see what that rascal Frank Underwood will do next. Like said, it's about twists and turns more than making you really give a poo poo why Frank deserves to be president other than he's a shitbag who wants it supes hard. I'd honestly argue it'd be worse as a product if it tried to make me 'feel' for Frank, the BBC show did a great job just establishing the lead was just a horrible person too (though I agree that Richardson plays heartless sociopath way better than Spacey, who while I appreciate the folksy charm version he did, just didn't really sell the whole 'this man is objectively evil, and he wins because politics is a loving lions den' as well). The story really isn't about the people, it's about the environment, it's a success because it's almost a complete inversion of traditional stories like this. The people are the backdrop, there are ten Frank Underwoods in any given DC building and fifty of everyone else, the point is the overall story and setting and climate that should be the focus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:I think Lupa made a video about that back when she reviewed the NBC (?) series starring Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman (apparently, George R. R. Martin was an executive producer on that). I looked at the pilot and never checked out any more. It was too generic CW to care honestly. I barely remember it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:59
|
|